PIERRE, South Dakota (AP) -- State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.__________________Terrence P. Tuffy

Be steady in your convictions, and be a person of your word.
Book of Sirach 5:10

Good news for whom, exactly? The quacks who perform back alley coathanger abortions? Their business should boom. Making something illegal doesn't stop people from doing it (see: alcohol, drugs), it just creates more criminals.

Why do anti-choice people find it necessary to impose their religious beliefs on others? I'm certainly no great fan of abortion, but I wouldn't presume to tell someone else what to do. You see, Terry, hard as it may be for you to grasp, not everyone believes "abortion is murder." (Although earlier in this post I think you established that you see things strictly in black and white here.) I would think a character as seemingly pious as yourself would respect the beliefs of others.

I only have to echo the Governor on this point:
"In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them," Rounds said in the statement.
Notice how he said "unborn children" and "helpless persons" and not unborn fetus's.

If I told you not to steal or not to lie, would that be imposing my religious beliefs on you also? Should I remain silent and not speak out against social injustice? Where would Civil Rights or slavery be if people remained mute?

It's about time people took responsibility for their actions. "Can't do the time....don't do the crime."

As for being pious - I have a long way to go before I can meet that description.
____________________
Too Many, Too Young, Too Soon !__________________Terrence P. Tuffy

Be steady in your convictions, and be a person of your word.
Book of Sirach 5:10

I once asked what would happen if Roe V Wade was overturned. Sadly no one came near the correct answer, which is merely that the matter of regulating abortion would be returned to the individual States. That all! It’s funny how some people, being alarmist or acting out of ignorance, immediately say this or that will happen as if there would be a universal response though out the fifty states.This has ALWAYS been a true States’ rights issue. So, this is good news for anyone who believes in our Constitutional government. You know, the Constitution that says laws are to be MADE be LEGIALATURES and only interpreted by courts when necessary.

It’s true unfortunately that not everybody believes abortion is murder. But definition of murder is too important to leave to each individual’s liking. Logically doing that would reduce ‘murder’ to its lowest common denominator. For instance, some people in this country don’t believe it’s murder to kill a female relative who had the audacity to embarrass the family by allowing herself to be raped. Is that an acceptable act?

Hopefully, in some States at least, they will come to the realization that wanton destruction of human life, overwhelmingly for no other purpose then a child would be an inconvenience, is contrary to our society’s well being. Perhaps a state or two may even think that sticking a scissor into the brain of a baby already half out of the birth canal is unjustifiable in any instance. I certainly think so.

This is NOT an issue of states rights but rather basic individual Constitutional protections. On one side it is argued that a fertilised egg is a protectable human on the other side a fully cognitive human is being told their bodies are not their own to do with as they want. I am very anti-abortion and simultaneously fiercely pro-choice. This is a conflict of absolutes that brings out the silly religious arguments when it is a civil rights issue to be decided by civil codes. If the catholic church REALLY believed in preventing abortions and AIDS, they would get off their stupid abstinence only education horse and accept that PEOPLE WILL HAVE SEX....and come up with secondary and tertiary protections.....

Why I couldn't find this thread, I don't know. Well, anyway I'm glad it's still here. Thanks for finding it for me Webguy.

Barry,
Constitutional protections? you're right. The first one being, the right to life. I don't think anyone of us here would have wanted our mother's to have chosen the abortion option. So, I think it would be safe to assume that that would apply to the currently unborn now too.
As for "the stupid abstinence only education" it is so stupid that it's the only one with 100% success rate.
People need to take responsibility for their actions! In having sex you run the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, STD's, AIDS and death; as in, Can't do the time, don't do the crime.__________________Terrence P. Tuffy

Be steady in your convictions, and be a person of your word.
Book of Sirach 5:10

Originally Posted by laguna_bThis is NOT an issue of states rights but rather basic individual Constitutional protections.

Where, exactly does the Constitution cover abortion? It doesn't. And all powers not EXPRESSLY granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people (states that is.) So, this is absolutely a states' right issue. But then, any reasonable reading of the Constitution makes clear that our federalist system is all about states' rights and limited central government, despite what we've been fed since FDR.

Roe v. Wade was a privacy issue. You probably will argue that "privacy" is not specifically guaranteed by the constitution but then the original constitution left slavery as a legal entity. Some changes to the way the constitutional powers have been broadened over time by the Supreme Court in interpreting intent as well as verbage, have been a far reach. For instance, segregation abolition by the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the result of judicial activism that said that the restaurants engaged in interstate commerce and thus regulatable. Lacking this stretch, we would still have segregation until the "states" decided they did not want it. Expanding constitutional protection of the individual should not be looked upon by either conservative nor liberal as an evil over step. Human progress in the USA in civil rights for blacks, women and gay people have had to overcome "states rights" to persecute or deny equality. The world is simply not black and white....it is almost all grey. Anyone on this board who is over 25 and has not realized this is hiding in an ideological prison of their own making.

Terry, I hope you have the opportunity to face real discrimination, to have your rights stripped from you without recourse or due process, to face cruel unusual punishment, to be denied fair treatment and hearings before courts.....and look back and realize that W is not defending you or the unborn, but rather the mighty, the rich and the bigoted. You are now his ally, you may one day be his victim. Barry

Insert Photos

Web address (URL)

Image URL

If your URL is correct, you'll see an image preview here. Large images may take a few minutes to appear.
Remember: Using others' images on the web without their permission may be bad manners, or worse, copyright infringement.